Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 11, Issue 1–2, pp 207–219 | Cite as

Biophysical stimuli induced by passive movements compensate for lack of skeletal muscle during embryonic skeletogenesis

  • Niamh C. Nowlan
  • Gerard Dumas
  • Shahragim Tajbakhsh
  • Patrick J. Prendergast
  • Paula Murphy
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

In genetically modified mice with abnormal skeletal muscle development, bones and joints are differentially affected by the lack of skeletal muscle. We hypothesise that unequal levels of biophysical stimuli in the developing humerus and femur can explain the differential effects on these rudiments when muscle is absent. We find that the expression patterns of four mechanosensitive genes important for endochondral ossification are differentially affected in muscleless limb mutants, with more extreme changes in the expression in the humerus than in the femur. Using finite element analysis, we show that the biophysical stimuli induced by muscle forces are similar in the humerus and femur, implying that the removal of muscle contractile forces should, in theory, affect the rudiments equally. However, simulations in which a displacement was applied to the end of the limb, such as could be caused in muscleless mice by movements of the mother or normal littermates, predicted higher biophysical stimuli in the femur than in the humerus. Stimuli induced by limb movement were much higher than those induced by the direct application of muscle forces, and we propose that movements of limbs caused by muscle contractions, rather than the direct application of muscle forces, provide the main mechanical stimuli for normal skeletal development. In muscleless mice, passive movement induces unequal biophysical stimuli in the humerus and femur, providing an explanation for the differential effects seen in these mice. The significance of these results is that forces originating external to the embryo may contribute to the initiation and progression of skeletal development when muscle development is abnormal.

Keywords

Skeletal development Mechanobiology Mouse mutant Muscle contractions Finite element analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Robert Hill, Edinburgh, UK, for RNA probes. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (083539/Z/07/Z), and by a grant from the French Embassy in Ireland (Service de Coopération et d’Action Culturelle). NCN was funded by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme and a fellowship from the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology. The Tajbakhsh laboratory was funded by the Institut Pasteur and AFM.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Carter DR, Orr TE, Fyhrie DP, Schurman DJ (1987) Influences of mechanical stress on prenatal and postnatal skeletal development. Clin Orthop Relat Res 15(219): 237–250Google Scholar
  2. DeLaurier A, Burton N, Bennett M, Baldock R, Davidson D, Mohun T, Logan M (2008) The mouse limb anatomy atlas: an interactive 3D tool for studying embryonic limb patterning. BMC Dev Biol 8(1): 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drachman DB, Sokóloff L (1966) The role of movement in embryonic joint formation. Dev Biol 14: 401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldring MB, Tsuchimochi K, Ijiri K (2006) The control of chondrogenesis. J Cell Biochem 97(1): 33–44. doi: 10.1002/jcb.20652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gomez C, David V, Peet NM, Vico L, Chenu C, Malaval L, Skerry TM (2007) Absence of mechanical loading in utero influences bone mass and architecture but not innervation in Myod-Myf5-deficient mice. J Anat 210(3): 259–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00698.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall BK, Herring SW (1990) Paralysis and growth of the musculoskeletal system in the embryonic chick. J Morphol 206(1): 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall JG (1986) Analysis of Pena Shokeir phenotype. Am J Med Genet 25(1): 99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammond E, Donnenfeld AE (1995) Fetal Akinesia. Obstet Gynecol Surv 50(3): 240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heegaard JH, Beaupré GS, Carter DR (1999) Mechanically modulated cartilage growth may regulate joint surface morphogenesis. J Orthop Res 17(4): 509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson JH, Carter DR (2002) Mechanical induction in limb morphogenesis: the role of growth-generated strains and pressures. Bone 31(6): 645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hosseini A, Hogg DA (1991) The effects of paralysis on skeletal development in the chick embryo. I. General effects. J Anat 177: 159–168Google Scholar
  12. Jackson RA, Kumarasuriyar A, Nurcombe V, Cool SM (2006) Long-term loading inhibits ERK1/2 phosphorylation and increases FGFR3 expression in MC3T3-E1 osteoblast cells. J Cell Physiol 209(3): 894–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahn J, Shwartz Y, Blitz E, Krief S, Sharir A, Breitel DA, Rattenbach R, Relaix F, Maire P, Rountree RB, Kingsley DM, Zelzer E (2009) Muscle contraction Is necessary to maintain joint progenitor cell fate. Dev Cell 16(5): 734–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kassar-Duchossoy L, Gayraud-Morel B, Gomes D, Rocancourt D, Buckingham M, Shinin V, Tajbakhsh S (2004) Mrf4 determines skeletal muscle identity in Myf5: Myod double-mutant mice. Nature 431(7007): 466–471. doi: 10.1038/nature02876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ (2002) A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and loading. J Biomech 35(9): 1163–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landmesser L, Morris DG (1975) The development of functional innervation in the hind limb of the chick embryo. J Physiol 249(2): 301–326Google Scholar
  17. Lanske B, Karaplis AC, Lee K, Luz A, Vortkamp A, Pirro A, Karperien M, Defize LH, Ho C, Mulligan RC, Abou-Samra AB, Juppner H, Segre GV, Kronenberg HM (1996) PTH/PTHrP receptor in early development and Indian hedgehog-regulated bone growth. Science 273(5275): 663–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee HS, Millward-Sadler SJ, Wright MO, Nuki G, Salter DM (2000) Integrin and mechanosensitive ion channel-dependent tyrosine phosphorylation of focal adhesion proteins and beta-Catenin in human articular chondrocytes after mechanical stimulation. J Bone Min Res 15(8): 1501–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller ME, Hangartner TN (1999) Temporary brittle bone disease: association with decreased fetal movement and osteopenia. Calcif Tissue Int 64(2): 137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitrovic D (1982) Development of the articular cavity in paralyzed chick embryos and in chick embryo limb buds cultured on chorioallantoic membranes. Acta Anat (Basel) 113(4): 313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murray PD, Drachman DB (1969) The role of movement in the development of joints and related structures: the head and neck in the chick embryo. J Embryol Exp Morphol 22(3): 349–371Google Scholar
  22. Ng AF, Yang YO, Wong RW, Hagg EU, Rabie AB (2006) Factors regulating condylar cartilage growth under repeated load application. Front Biosci 11: 949–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nicole S, Diaz CC, Frugier T, Melki J (2002) Spinal muscular atrophy: recent advances and future prospects. Muscle Nerve 26(1): 4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nowlan NC, Murphy P, Prendergast PJ (2008a) A dynamic pattern of mechanical stimulation promotes ossification in avian embryonic long bones. J Biomech 41(2): 249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nowlan NC, Prendergast PJ, Murphy P (2008b) Identification of Mechanosensitive Genes during Embryonic Bone Formation. PLoS Comput Biol 4(12): e1000250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nowlan NC, Bourdon C, Dumas G, Tajbakhsh S, Prendergast PJ, Murphy P (2010a) Developing bones are differentially affected by compromised skeletal muscle formation. Bone 46(5): 1275–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nowlan NC, Sharpe J, Roddy K, Prendergast PJ, Murphy P (2010b) Mechanobiology of embryonic skeletal development: insights from animal models. Birth Defects Res Part C Embryo Today Rev 90(3): 203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osborne AC, Lamb KJ, Lewthwaite JC, Dowthwaite GP, Pitsillides AA (2002) Short-term rigid and flaccid paralyses diminish growth of embryonic chick limbs and abrogate joint cavity formation but differentially preserve pre-cavitated joints. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2(5): 448–456Google Scholar
  29. Prendergast PJ, Huiskes R, Soballe K (1997) Biophysical stimuli on cells during tissue differentiation at implant interfaces. J Biomech 30(6): 539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Provot S, Schipani E (2005) Molecular mechanisms of endochondral bone development. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 328(3): 658–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts CD, Vogtle L, Stevenson RD (1994) Effect Of Hemiplegia On Skeletal Maturation. J Pediat 125(5): 824–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roddy KA, Kelly GM, van Es MH, Murphy P, Prendergast PJ (2011a) Dynamic patterns of mechanical stimulation co-localise with growth and cell proliferation during morphogenesis in the avian embryonic knee joint. J Biomech 44(1): 143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roddy KA, Prendergast PJ, Murphy P (2011b) Mechanical influences on morphogenesis of the knee joint revealed through morphological, molecular and computational analysis of immobilised embryos. PLoS one 6(2): e17526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez JI, Garcia-Alix A, Palacios J, Paniagua R (1988a) Changes in the long bones due to fetal immobility caused by neuromuscular disease. A radiographic and histological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(7): 1052–1060Google Scholar
  35. Rodriguez JI, Palacios J, Garcia-Alix A, Pastor I, Paniagua R (1988b) Effects of immobilization on fetal bone development. A morphometric study in newborns with congenital neuromuscular diseases with intrauterine onset. Calcif Tissue Int 43(6): 335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rot-Nikcevic I, Reddy T, Downing KJ, Belliveau AC, Hallgrimsson B, Hall BK, Kablar B (2006) Myf5−/−:Myod−/− amyogenic fetuses reveal the importance of early contraction and static loading by striated muscle in mouse skeletogenesis. Dev Genes Evol 216(1): 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruano-Gil D, Nardi-Vilardaga J, Tejedo-Mateu A (1978) Influence of extrinsic factors on the development of the articular system. Acta Anat (Basel) 101(1): 36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rudnicki MA, Schnegelsberg PN, Stead RH, Braun T, Arnold HH, Jaenisch R (1993) Myod or Myf-5 is required for the formation of skeletal muscle. Cell 75(7): 1351–1359. doi: 0092-8674(93)90621-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarin VK, Carter DR (2000) Mechanobiology and joint conformity regulate endochondral ossification of sesamoids. J Orthop Res 18(5): 706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharpe J, Ahlgren U, Perry P, Hill B, Ross A, Hecksher-Sorensen J, Baldock R, Davidson D (2002) Optical projection tomography as a tool for 3D microscopy and gene expression studies. Science 296(5567): 541–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shefelbine SJ, Carter DR (2004) Mechanobiological predictions of growth front morphology in developmental hip dysplasia. J Orthop Res 22(2): 346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shiang R, Thompson L, Zhu Y, Church D, Fielder T, Bocian M, Winokur S, Wasmuth J (1994) Mutations in the transmembrane domain of FGFR3 cause the most common genetic form of dwarfism, achondroplasia. Cell 78(2): 335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevens SS, Beaupré GS, Carter DR (1999) Computer model of endochondral growth and ossification in long bones: biological and mechanobiological influences. J Orthop Res 17(5): 646–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sundaramurthy S, Mao JJ (2006) Modulation of endochondral development of the distal femoral condyle by mechanical loading. J Orthop Res 24(2): 229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suzue T (1996) Movements of mouse fetuses in early stages of neural development studied in vitro. Neurosci Lett 218(2): 131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tajbakhsh S, Bober E, Babinet C, Pournin S, Arnold H, Buckingham M (1996) Gene targeting the myf-5 locus with nlacZ reveals expression of this myogenic factor in mature skeletal muscle fibres as well as early embryonic muscle. Dev Dyn 206(3): 291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tajbakhsh S, Rocancourt D, Cossu G, Buckingham M (1997) Redefining the genetic hierarchies controlling skeletal myogenesis: Pax-3 and Myf-5 act upstream of Myod. Cell 89(1): 127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tanaka N, Ohno S, Honda K, Tanimoto K, Doi T, Ohno-Nakahara M, Tafolla E, Kapila S, Tanne K (2005) Cyclic mechanical strain regulates the PTHrP expression in cultured chondrocytes via activation of the Ca2+ channel. J Dent Res 84(1): 64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tanck E, Blankevoort L, Haaijman A, Burger EH, Huiskes R (2000) Influence of muscular activity on local mineralization patterns in metatarsals of the embryonic mouse. J Orthop Res 18(4): 613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tanck E, Van Donkelaar CC, Jepsen KJ, Goldstein SA, Weinans H, Burger EH, Huiskes R (2004) The mechanical consequences of mineralization in embryonic bone. Bone 35(1): 186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Theiler K (1989) The house mouse: atlas of embryonic development. 2nd edn Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Wesstrom G, Bensch J, Schollin J (1986) Congenital myotonic dystrophy. Acta Paediat 75(5): 849–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yoshida C, Furuichi T, Fujita T, Fukuyama R, Kanatani N, Kobayashi S, Satake M, Takada K, Komori T (2002) Core-binding factor interacts with Runx2 and is required for skeletal development. Nature Genet 32(4): 633–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niamh C. Nowlan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gerard Dumas
    • 3
  • Shahragim Tajbakhsh
    • 3
  • Patrick J. Prendergast
    • 1
  • Paula Murphy
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Trinity Centre for BioengineeringSchool of Engineering, Trinity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.EMBL/CRG Systems Biology Unit, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) and UPFBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Stem Cells and Development, Department of Developmental BiologyInstitut PasteurParisFrance
  4. 4.Department of ZoologySchool of Natural Sciences, Trinity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations